That is entirely too much money for Joe Nathan. This could be a complete disaster for them, if Neftali Feliz can't cut it as a starter.

soxinem1

11-21-2011, 08:05 PM

That is entirely too much money for Joe Nathan. This could be a complete disaster for them, if Neftali Feliz can't cut it as a starter.

You ain't kidding. $14 million + guaranteed? Wow.

I honestly think TEX would be better off getting Francisco Rodriguez than committing this kind of money to such a question mark.

DirtySox

11-21-2011, 08:06 PM

Reliever prices continue to be ridiculous. Thornton might fetch a nice return in this environment.

thomas35forever

11-21-2011, 08:12 PM

Well, at least this prevents a revival project in Minny.

gregoriop

11-21-2011, 09:39 PM

I always forget how old he is too. He's turning 37 tomorrow.

PalehosePlanet

11-21-2011, 09:58 PM

That is entirely too much money for Joe Nathan. This could be a complete disaster for them, if Neftali Feliz can't cut it as a starter.

Feliz could always return to the pen if he fails as a starter. Hell, he might be forced to anyway, because Nathan is likely to struggle.

PaleHoser

11-21-2011, 10:02 PM

Breaks my heart to see him leave the division.

russ99

11-21-2011, 10:10 PM

Jenks is getting $6M in Boston, so Nathan for $7M is a steal, if he stays healthy.

doublem23

11-21-2011, 10:17 PM

Jenks is getting $6M in Boston, so Nathan for $7M is a steal, if he stays healthy.

Just because 1 team made a stupid move doesn't mean it's a great deal for another team to make an equally stupid move.

That's like saying Rios is a steal for the Sox at $12 M next year (:angry:) because the Angels are paying Vernon Wells $21 M.

Lip Man 1

11-22-2011, 12:12 AM

Gang:

I agree its to much probably for him but remember the Rangers just signed a deal with Fox Sports Southwest that gives them around 88 million a year starting in 2014....that's just local TV money

They are flush with cash, the payroll is going to go up considerably.

Lip

cub killer

11-22-2011, 05:13 AM

Yes, they are flush with cash, but that doesn't mean they can throw around money irresponsibly, if they want to win the World Series. Considering how hard it is to win that, you can say every penny counts.

Lip Man 1

11-22-2011, 09:01 AM

Cub:

My point is when you now have Yankee-Red Sox like money to spend, the definition or "irresponsible" changes doesn't it for the team doing the spending.

Lip

asindc

11-22-2011, 09:53 AM

Yes, they are flush with cash, but that doesn't mean they can throw around money irresponsibly, if they want to win the World Series. Considering how hard it is to win that, you can say every penny counts.

Cub:

My point is when you now have Yankee-Red Sox like money to spend, the definition or "irresponsible" changes doesn't it for the team doing the spending.

Lip

I would still consider it irresponsible. Just as any Sox observer could have told Epstein that a 2-yr., $6 million per contract for Bobby Jenks was a failure waiting to happen, anyone who watched Nathan last year would consider $7 million a year for him, one year removed from major surgery at the age of 37 and coming off a very mediocre year, no less risky. The ability to absorb the potential loss mitigates the risk, somewhat, but it does not mitigate how foolhardy the decision is.

SI1020

11-22-2011, 10:45 AM

It does seem irresponsible, stupid or whatever your favorite perjorative is. However, I have to agree with this.

Cub:

My point is when you now have Yankee-Red Sox like money to spend, the definition or "irresponsible" changes doesn't fit for the team doing the spending.

Lip Absolutely. It doesn't guarantee success, but you can eat some of your mistakes, while most of your competitors can't.